Last reviewed: Next review due:
Why bail hearings are a reporting flashpoint
A defendant's first appearance, where bail is considered, is often the first public sight of a case that will run for months. It draws intense reader interest — will the defendant be released, and on what conditions? — at precisely the point where the least information is available and the restrictions are at their tightest.
Getting bail reporting right means understanding two separate things: what the law lets you publish about the hearing itself, and what the court is actually deciding when it grants or refuses bail. Confusing procedural caution with an admission of guilt, or reporting representations that are legally restricted, are the two most common errors.
The s.52A Crime and Disorder Act 1998 restriction
Where a case is being dealt with under the sending procedure for an indictable-only or either-way offence destined for the Crown Court, section 52A of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 automatically restricts reporting of applications for bail and the court's reasons for granting or refusing it. The restriction exists to prevent publication of prejudicial detail — such as the substance of the prosecution's objections to bail — before a jury is ever empanelled.
The restriction is automatic: you do not need a court order for it to apply, and it remains in force by default until the case against the defendant is dismissed, discontinued, or otherwise concluded — unless the court is asked to and agrees to lift it.
What s.52A restricts you from publishing
- The substance of the prosecution's objections to bail, or the defence submissions in support of it
- The court's stated reasons for granting or refusing bail
- Evidence or allegations referred to during the bail application beyond the charge itself
- Any detail that goes beyond the specific permitted matters set out below
What you can still report
Section 52A does not create a blackout. A specific, defined list of matters remains reportable regardless of the restriction:
The Bail Act 1976 framework and custody time limits
The Bail Act 1976 establishes a presumption in favour of bail for most defendants. That presumption can be displaced where the court finds substantial grounds for believing the defendant would fail to surrender, commit further offences, interfere with witnesses, or obstruct the course of justice — or, for the most serious offences, where refusal is necessary for the defendant's own protection. Conditions such as a surety, residence requirement, curfew, tagging, or a duty to report to a police station can be imposed instead of an outright refusal.
Custody time limits, set under regulations made under s.22 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, cap how long a defendant can lawfully be held in custody awaiting trial. When a limit is approaching expiry, the prosecution must either be ready for trial or apply to extend it — an application which is itself a newsworthy, reportable procedural event, distinct from a routine bail hearing.
Open justice and lifting the restriction
Section 52A restrictions sit alongside, not against, the wider open justice principle: the court itself remains open to the public, and you retain the right to attend and observe. Either the defendant or the prosecution may apply for the restriction to be lifted, and the court has discretion to grant that application. Defendants sometimes seek this themselves — for example, to have their side of a bail dispute reported publicly.
The Supreme Court refused an anonymity order to a man arrested but never charged in relation to a child-abuse investigation. Held that the press has a strong right to report public court proceedings and identify individuals discussed in them, absent specific fair-trial risk.
Once the case concludes — by dismissal, discontinuance, acquittal, or conviction and sentence — the s.52A restriction lifts automatically, and the full detail of earlier bail hearings can then be reported as part of a wrap-up or background piece, subject to any other restriction still in force.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Reporting the prosecution's stated reasons for opposing bail, believing the s.52A restriction only covers the outcome, not the reasoning behind objections.
- Publishing bail conditions as though they were a finding against the defendant — conditions manage risk pending trial and are not evidence of guilt.
- Describing a defendant remanded in custody as having been "denied justice" or similar loaded language that implies a view on guilt.
- Assuming the restriction has lifted simply because time has passed, without confirming the case has actually concluded or an order has been made.
- Failing to distinguish a Crown Court bail application, which is not automatically restricted in the same way, from a magistrates court sending hearing, which is.
Related guides
Primary sources
Frequently asked questions
Can I report that a defendant was refused bail?
What is the s.52A restriction and when does it apply?
Can the s.52A restriction be lifted?
What are custody time limits and why do they matter for bail reporting?
Does the s.52A restriction apply at the Crown Court too?
Related guides
Primary sources
- Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s.52A— legislation.gov.uk
- Bail Act 1976— legislation.gov.uk
- Reporting Restrictions in the Criminal Courts— Judicial Office
- National Union of Journalists— NUJ
Not legal advice. This guide is for educational purposes. Consult a qualified media lawyer before making publication decisions in legally sensitive situations.